Thursday, August 16, 2012

Tea Party Applauds Judge's Decision on Voter ID; Says Further Reforms are Needed to Insure Voter Integrity

Philadelphia, PA (August 15, 2012) -- Judge Robert E. Simpson's rejection, today, of the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the Pennsylvania voter ID law is being applauded by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, the oldest and largest Tea Party group in the tri-state region, whose members backed the bill before it was introduced in the 2011-2012 legislative session.

"In his 70-page decision, Judge Simpson declared that the plaintiffs, led by the ACLU, had not established that 'disenfranchisement [of voters] was immediate or inevitable,'" said Association President, Teri Adams.   "And we couldn't agree more.

"The judge further ruled that overturning the law would negatively impact the
ongoing electoral process--a disruption that we think would confuse voters.

"We congratulate and thank Senior Deputy Attorney General, Patrick Cawley, for successfully arguing the case. 

"We also thank State Representatives Stephen Barrar and Darryl Metcalfe, whom we met with in December, 2010, prior to their introduction of the bill in the current legislative session."

"We anticipate that the ACLU will appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and we predict that the court will ultimately uphold Judge Simpson's well-reasoned opinion," said Ms. Adams. 

"In the meantime, our group will continue to staunchly advocate for voter integrity as it relates not only to voter ID, but also to voter registration."

13 comments:

  1. Ms. Viviette Applewhite, the plaintiff who filed the request for injunction, will supposedly not have enough time between now and November to obtain her voter ID.

    She only has 82 days to obtain the ID. She says she's been trying for years to get her photo ID.

    Perhaps her friends at the ACLU can help her out.

    1773-2009 Anyone in Philadelphia own a camera?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally, I don't have a fundamental problem with requiring a photo ID. Most of you don't like the ACLU, or Democrats and undoubtedly, you enjoy seeing them lose. Something to think about though is this, the state legislated a solution to a problem that did not exist. IE, they openly admitted they had no evidence of voter fraud that this solution would fix. To me, it begs the question, why do this when it doesn't fix a problem?

    In court, the ACLU had to prove disenfranchisement; the state did not need to prove they legislated this bill to stop rampant fraud. It's always easier to disprove something then it is to prove something. I think anyone who is not militantly connected a view from center can see what this is about. It's great when it steers outcomes in a direction you like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need a photo I.D. to get on an airplane, apply for a job, and to buy a beer. Why not have one to vote. BTW, voter fraud does exist otherwise Norm Coleman would still be in office and would have been the needed vote to stop Obamacare.

      Delete
    2. That's why I said, in principle, I agree. In this day and age, not using photo ID seems out of place. The timing is curious though, don't you think? Ultimately, I don't think it's going to make much difference. If the election were today, Obama probably wins anyway - an outcome I am sort of ambivalent about. neither will leave the country in better shape financially, neither will start to pull our military back in and neither will pull themselves away from special interest.

      Delete
  3. Surely in two months people in urban environments can walk down to the town hall and grab a photo ID.

    1773-2009

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a little neat and tidy, but I can't say I strongly disagree. I'm not going to pretend it's not a bullshit move to make it more difficult to vote for people who tend to vote Democrat and it was timed to be just long enough to say people have enough time but not long enough before the election to allow local Democratic machines to organize and get people to "town hall" where it will surely only take just a few minutes to get what they need. (sarcasm)

      The loss of freedom in our Democracy has come much more from people you don't hear about or that you hear about but can't control. While I do truly admire the grass roots organizing that has happened with the Tea Party, they too are selective about what they are outraged about. John Adams was probably considered just as big a pain in the ass and just as insufferable as the ACLU is today. There is an undercurrent of dishonesty in what they are seeking to accomplish with these photo ID laws.

      Everybody has a blind spot dollar where they are vulnerable to being duped while they are directed to focus on something else. I'm no different, but at least I'm willing to admit it and try to be aware of it. With many posters from MW, I'm not sure they really care about the means as long as the end they seek is obtained.

      Delete
    2. Try not to think for it is not your best ability, got it comrade.

      Delete
  4. Gotta is spot on. Recently when that criminal Holder was in Houston, in order to get in the auditorium to see/hear him, you had to present a photo ID. So you have present photo ID to see a criminal, but you don't have to provide one to prove you are who you are in order to vote. The commies are such hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How bout we try something new on this site. Instead of being fucking children with stupid name calling and insults, how bout we disagree like adults, make our case on a particular subject and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surely the results will skew this November based on tighter examination of voting roles.

    Why should your vote be cancelled by an illegal vote?

    1773-2009

    ReplyDelete
  7. A false premise implied in your response is that any voter who didn't have a photo ID in previous elections was casting and illegal and fraudulent ballot. This was not proven or even remotely supported by the states passing these laws. Instead, they said we are doing it because we can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the problem is minute then there seems to be nothing to worry about on either side.

      1773-2009 Everyone should vote on the same day except overseas military.

      Delete
  8. Applewhite got her Voter ID

    "The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a PennDot office and was issued the photo ID card she needs to vote."

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/18/1121477/-Applewhite-got-her-Voter-ID

    1773-2009 Now that was hard!

    ReplyDelete